Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #523737 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-29 11:59 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 247 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 09:53 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 11:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 13:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 18:23 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-29 17:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:17 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 05:02 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 08:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:05 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-30 15:21 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:55 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 14:20 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 19:20 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:06 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 09:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 12:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 23:31 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:06 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-02 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 05:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 03:47 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 06:27 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:42 -0500
Re: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-03 05:33 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 22:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 08:58 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 19:33 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 16:30 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 19:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 04:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 04:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 14:12 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 16:12 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 18:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 13:25 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-05 21:41 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 10:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:34 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 20:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 21:12 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 15:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 16:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 10:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 16:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 17:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-08 03:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:11 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 16:46 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:19 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-09 20:09 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 10:59 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-10 00:57 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 11:22 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 09:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 14:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:43 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-06 15:59 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 13:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-07 05:58 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 15:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 02:21 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-06 02:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 18:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-07 10:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 18:40 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 11:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-03 19:27 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-03 15:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-04 18:07 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-04 20:28 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-05 03:24 +0000
Re: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-04 04:39 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 18:07 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 13:36 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 17:21 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:22 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 14:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 18:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 19:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:18 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:32 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 19:02 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:22 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:08 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 19:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 00:26 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:33 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 22:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 22:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 04:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:30 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:34 +1000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 21:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-02 21:49 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 22:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:41 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-03 19:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 20:05 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:45 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 16:00 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 17:26 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:38 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 09:48 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 07:34 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-04 11:18 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-10-04 09:28 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 19:09 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-05 10:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:54 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-04 07:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-04 11:51 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 02:56 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:08 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-30 22:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 23:00 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-01 10:11 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 12:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-02 10:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 18:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-03 10:29 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-05 16:13 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:07 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 18:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:56 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:25 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:47 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 17:52 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 23:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 17:55 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 22:54 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-01 22:16 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 04:35 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 16:19 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 20:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:36 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:05 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-05 15:59 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:44 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 08:03 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:08 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:39 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 22:58 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:28 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:50 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:42 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:38 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:31 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:24 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 21:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 09:57 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 09:16 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:14 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 04:19 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 14:30 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:40 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:00 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 23:27 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 13:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 14:54 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 16:24 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 22:46 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:02 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-01 04:17 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:37 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-01 18:35 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 04:07 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 01:37 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 14:41 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-02 10:46 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 17:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-02 20:34 +0200
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-02 19:43 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-02 17:09 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:11 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 17:04 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:45 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-29 23:07 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-29 19:44 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 00:19 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-30 08:27 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-30 00:34 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-01 15:32 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-01 21:03 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-29 17:36 -0700
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:06 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-30 17:18 +0000
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 04:23 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-30 10:15 -0400
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 04:43 -0500
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 19:54 +0100
Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:59 -0700
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 10:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KpydnYYAnpPKp4jLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524782 |
"dmaster" <dan.woj@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:44153553-5049-4c6f-bcd4-b5d4171c3ae5@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 6:08:46 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote: > ... >> > Don't forget what Frank said earlier about seeing the top of WTC7 shake >> > after hearing what sounded like a jet engine because that and what you >> > just quoted above is the perfect description of the Nuclear Demolition >> > and >> > that explains the haze coming from below the remains of WTC7 in the >> > following: >> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > ... > > Unfortunately for Rocky, that is a piss poor description of an actual > underground nuclear detonation. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE4pwEjPTVc If Michael from sci.physics sees that video he will tell you that wasn't a real nuke because there is no flash, there was no air blast wave, there was no EMP and above all there was no seismic signature. ROTFLMAO > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca4D0-s8OsI We already know the Sedan Event in the video above does not compare to what happened in Nuke York City because in Nuke York City the nukes used on WTC2, WTC1 and WTC7 were detonated in solid rock instead of dirt. BTW that makes four of you Television Set hugging clowns that can't see there is a difference between nukes detonated in solid rock or dirt. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPwSN9gUG5c Actually if people practiced making large earthquakes with nukes think of how many nukes were blown up trying no to make small or undetectable earthquakes so our government could blow up 3 buildings right in front of your eyes. > But anyone with a lick of sense already knew that. (I'm pretty sure Rocky > does too.) Actually the first video was pretty good but if they had planted it closer to the surface it would have pulverized any building above it. Plus pulverized does not mean blown up because it could stand on it's own until a strong wind blew it away or a weight from something what wasn't pulverized could crush it. > Dan (Woj...)P Here, if you want to see a real underground nuke in action did this: And just as your first video proved the flash or the air blast wave, or the EMP from underground nukes is no where near what you would expect from a nuke detonated at ground level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 18:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5su51bdj8j355nth6vl50odn2l739df424@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524761 |
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:28:02 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:19:40 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 08:58:58 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >>>>> >>>>> Rocky >>>> >>>> Did you listen to the video, Roger? He says you kooky conspiracy >>>> Troofers are wrong. >>> >>> >>> Oh really ? >> >> Yeah really, proving you haven't watched the video either. >> >>> So what do you think he meant by "hearing a sound like a jet engine" >>> just before WTC 7 began to fall ?? >> >> You do realize there was a CAP over NYC, and Washington DC immediately >> after the attacks? Those CAP's lasted for weeks. We had an >> aircraft carrier, the USS George Washington, stationed in NY harbor >> which provided air cover over NYC as well as other assistance needed >> by the folks in New York. Did you know that, Bast? >> >>> When we ALL KNOW WTC 7 was not hit by any plane (or even a missile) >> >> WTC 7 was hit by falling debris. It burned for ~7 hrs before the >> structure was finally weakened enough to collapse. >> >>> WHAT made the jet engine noise ???? >> >> The F-16's initially flying a CAP and then F/A 18's were seen and >> heard flying over NYC for weeks. >> >>> And of course this guy is going to hold back from saying what he really >>> thinks for fear of reprecussions, and the filmed interview was >>> scripted. >> >> If that interview was scripted then it was scripted to make you and >> Roger Rocky look like idiots. >> >> " I saw the fire, the damage and that was good enough for me. I never >> heard any charges, any sequence of explosions". >> >> He also said people like you and Roger Rocky "have no respect for the >> people who died that day. It's like a slap in the face " . > >Firstly, others were in Manhattan that day, and their stories are far >different than what this guy claims YOU and Roger Rocky are the ones linking his interview on youtube. Now you're going back on your claims. LOL >He shouldn't talk for the victims families. >As they are the ones who have been publicly demanding a real investigation >from the beginning. He isn't talking for the victims families. >But that this clown does talk for others proves what a discredited fool he is. >And if you are listening to him, you are even more of a fool. Bast dear, it is YTOU and Roger Rocky then who are the fools since it is your two who keep linking the youtube video to your comments about WTC 7. You keep kicking yourself in the ass. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 04:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <au571bhoob35i14b4sm6sgn1n0sfsmsokh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524761 |
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:28:02 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
[...]
>>> And of course this guy is going to hold back from saying what he really
>>> thinks for fear of reprecussions, and the filmed interview was
>>> scripted.
>>
>> If that interview was scripted then it was scripted to make you and
>> Roger Rocky look like idiots.
>>
>> " I saw the fire, the damage and that was good enough for me. I never
>> heard any charges, any sequence of explosions".
>>
>> He also said people like you and Roger Rocky "have no respect for the
>> people who died that day. It's like a slap in the face " .
>
>
>
>Firstly, others were in Manhattan that day, and their stories are far
>different than what this guy claims
>
>He shouldn't talk for the victims families.
>As they are the ones who have been publicly demanding a real investigation
>from the beginning.
>
>But that this clown does talk for others proves what a discredited fool he
>is.
>And if you are listening to him, you are even more of a fool.
You, and Roger, posted the link to the video multiple times. You
claimed it helped to prove your point. Now you claim that listening to
the contents of a video YOU linked to makes one a fool?
How much more the fool are you for posting the link and claiming
it validated your claims?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 00:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <19891bd5rh0uhu9b1o285fo8lnjgnjss7r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524855 |
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 04:43:53 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:28:02 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >wrote: > >[...] > >>>> And of course this guy is going to hold back from saying what he really >>>> thinks for fear of reprecussions, and the filmed interview was >>>> scripted. >>> >>> If that interview was scripted then it was scripted to make you and >>> Roger Rocky look like idiots. >>> >>> " I saw the fire, the damage and that was good enough for me. I never >>> heard any charges, any sequence of explosions". >>> >>> He also said people like you and Roger Rocky "have no respect for the >>> people who died that day. It's like a slap in the face " . >> >> >> >>Firstly, others were in Manhattan that day, and their stories are far >>different than what this guy claims >> >>He shouldn't talk for the victims families. >>As they are the ones who have been publicly demanding a real investigation >>from the beginning. >> >>But that this clown does talk for others proves what a discredited fool he >>is. >>And if you are listening to him, you are even more of a fool. > > You, and Roger, posted the link to the video multiple times. You >claimed it helped to prove your point. Now you claim that listening to >the contents of a video YOU linked to makes one a fool? > How much more the fool are you for posting the link and claiming >it validated your claims? LOL These two are so stupid! The entertainment value they provide is priceless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 19:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <murshb$elk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524497 |
On 04/10/2015 14:58, Rocky wrote: > "BDK" <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.307a5fc17e65f0a998c309@news.giganews.com... >> In article <lfm01b1ek8ba31dg89r0uac55r78j7cjij@4ax.com>, >> compuelf@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:44:09 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>>> There is no "truther" book.....You need a book to have a religion. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since when? While not in paper format, I've seen ample k00k sites >>>>> that serve as the religious books of Troofers like yourself. >>>>> >>>>>> You 9/11 official fairytalers have a book though ,...don't you. >>>>> >>>>> Since there is no such thing as 9/11 official fairytalers, no. >>>>> >>>>>> And all that you know is in that holy book. >>>>>> "The 9/11 Commision report" >>>>> >>>>> What do you believe you gain from your lying? Or are you honestly >>>>> as delusional as you present? >>>> >>>> The answer appears to be a definite yes. >>> >>> Bast certainly puts in a lot of time and effort to provide >>> evidence of it. >> >> She's a die hard Troofer, attempting to "spread the good news", the same >> as the whack job Christers raving on streetcorners are. > > And look at you. > > You can't even say what 9/11 fairytale of many that you believe in about the > missing debris field at the Pentagon She can't say about something that was missing, when it wasn't missing. > or what fairytale of many that you > believe in why there was next to nothing left of the Twin Towers, She can't say anything about something that is not correct. > or what > fairytale of many that you believe in as to why WTC7 had a symmetrical > collapse. > > The reason you refuse to say what fairytale of many you really believe in is > the Television Set Huggers like you have so many different fairytales they > gave up trying to say what happened a long long time ago like on September > 12, 2001. <G> > > And listen to the following video because it is evidence that WTC7 was a > nuclear demolition. He claims to have heard what sounded like a jet engine > (the detonation of an underground nuke) A nuke going of sounds like a jet engine. > he claims to have seen the top of > WTC7 shake and that is consistent with underground nukes Please explain what event it was consistent of so that we can compare. > and if he is > talking about the time from the shaking to the time that WTC7 disappeared > down then that too is consistent with underground nukes too as proven by > what happened with WTC2. > > 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c > > Rocky > > Oh look, your video talks about a 75 foot entry hole in the Pentagon. It also says that a 'blast expert' found plane debris, body parts, crew uniforms, black box. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 11:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muu35i$o54$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524538 |
Tony Dragon wrote: > On 04/10/2015 14:58, Rocky wrote: >> "BDK" <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.307a5fc17e65f0a998c309@news.giganews.com... >>> In article <lfm01b1ek8ba31dg89r0uac55r78j7cjij@4ax.com>, >>> compuelf@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:44:09 -0400, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>>> There is no "truther" book.....You need a book to have a religion. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since when? While not in paper format, I've seen ample k00k >>>>>> sites that serve as the religious books of Troofers like yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You 9/11 official fairytalers have a book though ,...don't you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since there is no such thing as 9/11 official fairytalers, >>>>>> no. >>>>>>> And all that you know is in that holy book. >>>>>>> "The 9/11 Commision report" >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you believe you gain from your lying? Or are you >>>>>> honestly as delusional as you present? >>>>> >>>>> The answer appears to be a definite yes. >>>> >>>> Bast certainly puts in a lot of time and effort to provide >>>> evidence of it. >>> >>> She's a die hard Troofer, attempting to "spread the good news", the >>> same as the whack job Christers raving on streetcorners are. >> >> And look at you. >> >> You can't even say what 9/11 fairytale of many that you believe in >> about the missing debris field at the Pentagon > > She can't say about something that was missing, when it wasn't missing. > >> or what fairytale of many that you >> believe in why there was next to nothing left of the Twin Towers, > > She can't say anything about something that is not correct. > >> or what >> fairytale of many that you believe in as to why WTC7 had a symmetrical >> collapse. >> >> The reason you refuse to say what fairytale of many you really believe >> in is the Television Set Huggers like you have so many different >> fairytales they gave up trying to say what happened a long long time >> ago like on September 12, 2001. <G> >> >> And listen to the following video because it is evidence that WTC7 was >> a nuclear demolition. He claims to have heard what sounded like a jet >> engine (the detonation of an underground nuke) > > A nuke going of sounds like a jet engine. > >> he claims to have seen the top of >> WTC7 shake and that is consistent with underground nukes > > Please explain what event it was consistent of so that we can compare. > >> and if he is >> talking about the time from the shaking to the time that WTC7 >> disappeared down then that too is consistent with underground nukes >> too as proven by what happened with WTC2. >> >> 9 11 FDNY LT FRANK PAPALIA SPEAKS ABOUT THE WTC 7 >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NICPz_I2Z-c >> >> Rocky >> >> > > Oh look, your video talks about a 75 foot entry hole in the Pentagon. > It also says that a 'blast expert' found plane debris, body parts, crew > uniforms, black box. > So let's see,....A "BLAST EXPERT",....no onther credentials listed. Who just happened to be at the pentagon that morning. When the pentagon was probably at full alert status, and would only allow people with already full security clearance to be even near the place Oh why am I not quite beliveing that this person would be UNBIASED, and can be trusted. When they couldn't even provide photos. But BTW,....the official fairytale is that they never found the black boxes from any of the planes. ....So why did this guy now claim to see it ????? The pont of the video is that the only proof and witnesses the official fairytalers rely on,....ARE OUTRIGHT LIARS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mupa7d$ur5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524358 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes: >On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 05:42:33 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >wrote: >>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:20:17 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That kind of shit isn't even mentioned in the bible,....as no one >>>> would have ever believed it. >>> >>> Especially since planes and the twin towers didn't exist. >>> What does the contents of the Bible have to do with your Troofer >>> religion? >>> >>>> So they just stuck to guys who could give life to the dead, and change >>>> pure water into complex organic molecules >>> >>> Which has what, exactly, to do with your blind faith in the >>> Troofer religion? >>There is no "truther" book.....You need a book to have a religion. > Since when? While not in paper format, I've seen ample k00k sites >that serve as the religious books of Troofers like yourself. One of the requirements of a religion is complete absolute faith in something that either science has no opinion on (the existence of God/gods) or something science says is impossible (rising from the dead, virgin birth etc). The Troofers have absolute blind faith in things that science says are impossible, such as magic nukes that vaporize buildings but don't do all the other things that nukes do, plus leave 1.5 million tons of debris, and "CGIs" that are imppossible with 2001 technology (or even modern technology) somehow getting into all of thousands of cameras and eyeballs, magic thermate and so forth. One difference is that most major religion have an all-powerful deity/deities that can do all that science says is impossible because they operate beyond normal laws of science. Trooferism never explains how their impossible events happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8PudndSooKW7qY3LnZ2dnUU7-T2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524404 |
added alt.astronomy "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mupa7d$ur5$1@pcls7.std.com... > "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> writes: > >>On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 05:42:33 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>wrote: > >>>K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:20:17 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That kind of shit isn't even mentioned in the bible,....as no one >>>>> would have ever believed it. >>>> >>>> Especially since planes and the twin towers didn't exist. >>>> What does the contents of the Bible have to do with your Troofer >>>> religion? >>>> >>>>> So they just stuck to guys who could give life to the dead, and change >>>>> pure water into complex organic molecules >>>> >>>> Which has what, exactly, to do with your blind faith in the >>>> Troofer religion? > >>>There is no "truther" book.....You need a book to have a religion. > >> Since when? While not in paper format, I've seen ample k00k sites >>that serve as the religious books of Troofers like yourself. > > One of the requirements of a religion is complete absolute faith in > something that either science has no opinion on (the existence of > God/gods) > or something science says is impossible (rising from the dead, virgin > birth etc). The Troofers have absolute blind faith in things that science > says are impossible, Where are you going with that? Don't forget it is the Television set worshippers like you that think very tall buildings should fall at the same speed as controlled demolitions just because of fire. <G> > such as magic nukes that vaporize buildings but don't > do all the other things that nukes do, plus leave 1.5 million tons of > debris, And you had to claim that debris ended up in the basement but you had no proof whatsoever that the debris made it by the Survivors or magically missed the walls of the Twin Towers that stood from 6 to 8 floors high. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg and "CGIs" that are imppossible with 2001 technology (or even > modern technology) Star Trek was a lot older than that and it had technology so great they took it off the air because it might help prove we faked a moon landing or two. > somehow getting into all of thousands of cameras Don't forget a lot more cameras failed than worked and the EMPs recorded by an AM radio operated by WCBS gives us a good reason why. And how hard would it be to give a bunch of people camera that would keep working even if there was a big enough EMP to knock out cheap cameras? Don't forget 2.3 trillion was missing the day before 9/11/01. > and eyeballs, And yet ABC and FOX were both interviewing eye witnesses that didn't see or hear anything at the time of the first real big explosion in the South Tower. That happens to be truth in broadcasting. <G> > magic thermate and so forth. No magic. Just white smoke and white smoke behind falling pieces that proving that thermate was used to make those airplane shapped holes in the Twin Towers because CGIs could not make them by themselves. DUH > One difference is that most major > religion have an all-powerful deity/deities that can do all that science > says is impossible because they operate beyond normal laws of science. > Trooferism never explains how their impossible events happen. You are the one with no explanation for where the Twin Towers went but anybody could see they floated away. Since all the major networks were operated by a certain group of people why not all the places with seismographs too? That way nukes could be detonated right in front of our faces and everybody would scream no, no, no. <G> And your bullshit about radiation is still just bullshit because we know they shipped certain samples away from Ground Zero and they probably used samples away from where the molten metal was found meaning away from the places that caused the haze in the following photo: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg ==================== And since nothing has been done to explain why Popular Mechanics claimed a 757 was more like a liquid then I'll repost the OP: ******** OP ******** To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small hole. Popular Mechanic goes one step further than Mike Walter and claimed that the 757 turned into a liquid and "flowed into the structure." (link at end) Since neither one of those stories is supported by an experiment they can both be considered to be complete bullshit. And talking about complete bullshit everything NIST published about their "Collapse Initiations" was also complete bullshit. And people wonder why so many people can not believe the crap we were told about the Pentagon, why people can not believe the crap we were told about Pranksville, PA and can not believe the crap we were told about the crashes that do not resemble crashes and the collapses in Nuke York City that do not resemble collapses. <G> Rocky http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <murptr$2n5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524411 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >added alt.astronomy And automatically removed by computer script. >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mupa7d$ur5$1@pcls7.std.com... >> One of the requirements of a religion is complete absolute faith in >> something that either science has no opinion on (the existence of >> God/gods) >> or something science says is impossible (rising from the dead, virgin >> birth etc). The Troofers have absolute blind faith in things that science >> says are impossible, >Where are you going with that? That Twooferism infects the same part of the brain that religious faith typically does. Since Twooferism makes no claim of a God, there's apparently still room there so that Twoofers can still claim to be good Christians, good Jews, good Buddhists or whatever yet still BELIEVE in anti-science crap like magic nukes, "CGIs" that kill people, cut holes in buildings and leave landing gear on the streets, magic thermate and so forth. Twoofers would make an excellent subject for an abnormal psychology study. >> such as magic nukes that vaporize buildings but don't >> do all the other things that nukes do, plus leave 1.5 million tons of >> debris, >And you had to claim that debris ended up in the basement but you had no >proof whatsoever that the debris made it 108,342 truckloads of debris is still a lot of proof that that happened, kook. Yes some DE was brought in, you once claimed 120 truckloads were brought in which is why I posted 108,222 truckoads of actual debris brought out. Do you have a better figure on how much DE was brought in? Actual data, not a kookvid, since you proved kookvids are full of lies. > and "CGIs" that are imppossible with 2001 technology (or even >> modern technology) >Star Trek was a lot older than that and it had technology so great they took >it off the air because it might help prove we faked a moon landing or two. Star Trek?? I love the old Star Trek, but the special effects are laughable by today's standard. Even then they weren't so great, they never wanted to put much money into that show. >> somehow getting into all of thousands of cameras >Don't forget a lot more cameras failed than worked Proof? (again, not a kookvid, actual non-lying data) > and the EMPs recorded by >an AM radio operated by WCBS gives us a good reason why. VHF FM receiver, kooktard. Not relevant anyway since an actual EMP, had there been one, would have knocked that receiver out permanently, as well as all the helicopters flying around, the NYC power grid, etc. etc. Don't you remember? That was part of your "duck test" proof that there were no nukes at the WTC! >And how hard would it be to give a bunch of people camera that would keep >working even if there was a big enough EMP to knock out cheap cameras? Even more proof of no EMP. If there was one, there would be no videos of the towers collapsing since they would all have been knocked out. Except maybe any 8mm movie film cameras. >Don't forget 2.3 trillion was missing the day before 9/11/01. Proof? And why would this be relevant? >> and eyeballs, >And yet ABC and FOX were both interviewing eye witnesses that didn't see or >hear anything at the time of the first real big explosion in the South >Tower. That happens to be truth in broadcasting. <G> Nobody ever claimed that *everybody* in NYC saw the planes. Just the thousands of people who were staring at the towers at the time, and who had a good view of the south part of the South Tower. >> magic thermate and so forth. >No magic. Yes, magic. Thermite/thermate is *slow* and would take some time to cut holes in steel. BTW why did you kooktards switch from kooking about magic thermate bringing down the towers to magic nukes doing so? > Just white smoke and white smoke behind falling pieces that >proving that thermate was used to make those airplane shapped holes in the >Twin Towers because CGIs could not make them by themselves. DUH OK, we know CGIs couldn't produce what we saw, and thermate couldn't produce what we saw, what did? How about airplanes? >> One difference is that most major >> religion have an all-powerful deity/deities that can do all that science >> says is impossible because they operate beyond normal laws of science. >> Trooferism never explains how their impossible events happen. >You are the one with no explanation for where the Twin Towers went but >anybody could see they floated away. Don't change the subject. I was talking about the details of your Twooferism religion. >Since all the major networks were operated by a certain group of people Who would these people be? > why >not all the places with seismographs too? That way nukes could be detonated >right in front of our faces and everybody would scream no, no, no. <G> We already explained to you how it would be impossible to mess with the data from "all the places with seismographs". Every university has one, or a dozen. Every country, including ones unfriendly to the US has many, perhaps thousands and thousands. Many amateurs have them, unknown to almost anyone else. Yet none of them recorded a 5.5 earthquake near NYC, or the distinctive nuclear explosion anywhere in the world. Remember, this was part of you magnificent duck test proof of no nukes! >And your bullshit about radiation is still just bullshit Nope. No radiation above background levels at Ground Zero, except for a trivial increase in tritium from the airliner exit doors. (remember nukes spew tritium everywhere, a tritium detector would have gone nuts)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 20:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6s-dneIn26YRT4zLnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524534 |
added alt.astronomy "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:murptr$2n5$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>added alt.astronomy > > And automatically removed by computer script. > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mupa7d$ur5$1@pcls7.std.com... > >>> One of the requirements of a religion is complete absolute faith in >>> something that either science has no opinion on (the existence of >>> God/gods) >>> or something science says is impossible (rising from the dead, virgin >>> birth etc). The Troofers have absolute blind faith in things that >>> science >>> says are impossible, > >>Where are you going with that? > > That Twooferism infects the same part of the brain that religious faith > typically does. Since Twooferism makes no claim of a God, there's > apparently still room there so that Twoofers can still claim to be good > Christians, good Jews, good Buddhists or whatever yet still BELIEVE in > anti-science crap like magic nukes, "CGIs" that kill people, cut holes in > buildings and leave landing gear on the streets, magic thermate and so > forth. Twoofers would make an excellent subject for an abnormal > psychology study. And don't forget that you are clearly a Television Set Hugger where everything your television set is gospel even though there was no 757 at the Pentagon until people put parts there for a photo OP, there was no wreckage at Pranksville, PA with the exception of the planted evidence that pointed to alleged hijackers and the jets flying into the Twin Towers were consistant with very cheap CGIs. And despite what you say about nukes there is still no better explanation for what remained of the Twin Towers than a Nuclear Demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzrescue1.html Plus the Nuclear Demoltions is what really gave Ground Zero the Ground Zero name. DUH >>> such as magic nukes that vaporize buildings but don't >>> do all the other things that nukes do, plus leave 1.5 million tons of >>> debris, > >>And you had to claim that debris ended up in the basement but you had no >>proof whatsoever that the debris made it > > 108,342 truckloads of debris is still a lot of proof that that happened, > kook. Yes some DE was brought in, you once claimed 120 truckloads were > brought in which is why I posted 108,222 truckoads of actual debris > brought out. Do you have a better figure on how much DE was brought in? > Actual data, not a kookvid, since you proved kookvids are full of lies. link? And . . . Don't forget you have yet to explain why both the Twin Towers had corners that survived after an alleged collapse that was really just the top part of the Twin Towers spreading the vaporized part of the Twin Towers all around and in the process the top part too was vaporized before it made it to the ground. See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzrescue1.html >> and "CGIs" that are imppossible with 2001 technology (or even >>> modern technology) ROTFLMAO because you forgot about Apple's Video Toaster. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Toaster >>Star Trek was a lot older than that and it had technology so great they >>took >>it off the air because it might help prove we faked a moon landing or two. > > Star Trek?? I love the old Star Trek, but the special effects are > laughable > by today's standard. Even then they weren't so great, they never wanted > to put much money into that show. > >>> somehow getting into all of thousands of cameras > >>Don't forget a lot more cameras failed than worked > > Proof? (again, not a kookvid, actual non-lying data) Ok, look at it the other way. Look at the videos played on TV and they all used professional cameras. The video that got played the most was even recorded at 200 FPS from a tripod. Obviously he didn't care about the resolution because a lot was lost at that FPS rate. And then they had to make the video appear to be handheld to make it harder for people in the know to undo the changes done to that video. THE NO PLANES MOVIE https://youtu.be/p1D1C94eE8U?t=56m56s >> and the EMPs recorded by >>an AM radio operated by WCBS gives us a good reason why. > > VHF FM receiver, kooktard. Not relevant anyway since an actual EMP, had > there been one, would have knocked that receiver out permanently, as well > as all the helicopters flying around, the NYC power grid, etc. etc. Don't > you remember? That was part of your "duck test" proof that there were no > nukes at the WTC! BULLSHIT FM could not have recorded the EMPs you clown. >>And how hard would it be to give a bunch of people camera that would keep >>working even if there was a big enough EMP to knock out cheap cameras? > > Even more proof of no EMP. If there was one, there would be no videos > of the towers collapsing since they would all have been knocked out. > Except maybe any 8mm movie film cameras. Now you are getting above ground nukes messed up with underground nukes again you clown. >>Don't forget 2.3 trillion was missing the day before 9/11/01. > > Proof? And why would this be relevant? Oh come now. Everybody knows about that special report the day before 9/11/01 given by Donald Rumsfelt. >>> and eyeballs, > >>And yet ABC and FOX were both interviewing eye witnesses that didn't see >>or >>hear anything at the time of the first real big explosion in the South >>Tower. That happens to be truth in broadcasting. <G> > > Nobody ever claimed that *everybody* in NYC saw the planes. Just the > thousands of people who were staring at the towers at the time, and who > had a good view of the south part of the South Tower. And yet you have no proof of that whatsoever. And on the other hand a lot of people claimed to have seen different things just like Mike Walter who saw different things in his 3 different stories. <G> >>> magic thermate and so forth. > >>No magic. > > Yes, magic. Thermite/thermate is *slow* and would take some time to > cut holes in steel. BTW why did you kooktards switch from kooking about > magic thermate bringing down the towers to magic nukes doing so? ROTFLMAO Here see: Thermite v Thermate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmENraVFXWA >> Just white smoke and white smoke behind falling pieces that >>proving that thermate was used to make those airplane shapped holes in the >>Twin Towers because CGIs could not make them by themselves. DUH > > OK, we know CGIs couldn't produce what we saw, and thermate couldn't > produce what we saw, what did? How about airplanes? ROTFLMAO because you obviosly never bothered to watch the NO PLANES MOVIE that has a link above. >>> One difference is that most major >>> religion have an all-powerful deity/deities that can do all that science >>> says is impossible because they operate beyond normal laws of science. >>> Trooferism never explains how their impossible events happen. > >>You are the one with no explanation for where the Twin Towers went but >>anybody could see they floated away. > > Don't change the subject. I was talking about the details of your > Twooferism religion. As opposed to your worshipping your Television Set despite the fact it can not explain why there was no debris from a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon until after parts were moved into place or why 3 steel framed buildings collapsed as fast as if they had been nuked. <G> >>Since all the major networks were operated by a certain group of people > > Who would these people be? Why don't you just search for: "Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read" > >> why >>not all the places with seismographs too? That way nukes could be >>detonated >>right in front of our faces and everybody would scream no, no, no. <G> > > We already explained to you how it would be impossible to mess with the > data from "all the places with seismographs". Every university has one, > or a dozen. Every country, including ones unfriendly to the US has many, > perhaps thousands and thousands. Many amateurs have them, unknown to > almost anyone else. Yet none of them recorded a 5.5 earthquake near NYC, > or the distinctive nuclear explosion anywhere in the world. Remember, > this was part of you magnificent duck test proof of no nukes! But if that were true then there would be a way to explain the remains of the Twin Towers without nukes, without claiming it ended up in the basement and you or NIST has not been able to do that. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg >>And your bullshit about radiation is still just bullshit > > Nope. No radiation above background levels at Ground Zero, except for a > trivial increase in tritium from the airliner exit doors. (remember nukes > spew tritium everywhere, a tritium detector would have gone nuts) And yet you have no link at all to support that BS. Again, I claim they sent specific samples elsewhere for testing and you have no idea how or where the test for radiation was done. And again more than Tritium was found and you really should watch: 04 - Phenomena https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 03:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <musqh0$2gb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #524590 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >added alt.astronomy You're going to fight a computer script that automatically removes alt.astronomy from the Newsgroup: line? Good luck with that! >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:murptr$2n5$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>added alt.astronomy >> >> And automatically removed by computer script. >>>Where are you going with that? >> >> That Twooferism infects the same part of the brain that religious faith >> typically does. Since Twooferism makes no claim of a God, there's >> apparently still room there so that Twoofers can still claim to be good >> Christians, good Jews, good Buddhists or whatever yet still BELIEVE in >> anti-science crap like magic nukes, "CGIs" that kill people, cut holes in >> buildings and leave landing gear on the streets, magic thermate and so >> forth. Twoofers would make an excellent subject for an abnormal >> psychology study. >And don't forget that you are clearly a Television Set Hugger where >everything your television set is gospel I rarely watch television. I did watch some more after 9/11 until I got fed up with just seeing the plane hit the south tower over and over again and the towers collapsing over and over again while the talking heads talked but gave very little new info. even though there was no 757 at the >Pentagon It was just about all inside, kook. How do you explain that they recovered 95% of the plane from in there, plus enough of every single passenger on board, except one, to identify them all (not counting 5 of Middle Eastern ethnicity whose DNA couldn't be matched with anyone) > there was no wreckage >at Pranksville, PA How do you explain that they recovered 95% of that plane, too? And every single passenger, too (again 4 unmatched DNA samples of Middle Eastern ethnicity) >And despite what you say about nukes there is still no better explanation >for what remained of the Twin Towers than a Nuclear Demolition. Except for all the others. >Plus the Nuclear Demoltions is what really gave Ground Zero the Ground Zero >name. DUH It was the media that called it "Ground Zero". First responders called it "the Pile". >> 108,342 truckloads of debris is still a lot of proof that that happened, >> kook. Yes some DE was brought in, you once claimed 120 truckloads were >> brought in which is why I posted 108,222 truckoads of actual debris >> brought out. Do you have a better figure on how much DE was brought in? >> Actual data, not a kookvid, since you proved kookvids are full of lies. >link? And . . . I asked YOU for a link on how much DE they brought in! >Don't forget you have yet to explain why both the Twin Towers had corners >that survived <snip babbling> I already explained that to you. An unsupported very tall skinny thing, such as the exterior walls of the towers with the floor trusses gone, is quite unstable and the top part tends to lean over and break off. This will repeat until the remaining portion is short enough (how short depends on its strength and stiffness) to remain standing. The standing walls are of that height. When taller they were unstable and the top part broke off. Go to your nearest Lowes or Home Depot, head to the moulding section and select a small skinny piece, the longest/tallest you can find (16 feet). Try to walk around with it straight up and down. You'll see the top part is very wobbly and unstable and will want to break off. It probably won't (not quite tall enough) but it just might. >>> and "CGIs" that are imppossible with 2001 technology (or even >>>> modern technology) >ROTFLMAO because you forgot about Apple's Video Toaster. See: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Toaster No, generating them was easy. Getting such images into the air or whatever you kooks claim "they" did to get the generated image into thousands of cameras and eyeballs isn't. Explain _that_! >>>Star Trek was a lot older than that and it had technology so great they >>>took >>>it off the air because it might help prove we faked a moon landing or two. >> >> Star Trek?? I love the old Star Trek, but the special effects are >> laughable >> by today's standard. Even then they weren't so great, they never wanted >> to put much money into that show. >> >>>> somehow getting into all of thousands of cameras >> >>>Don't forget a lot more cameras failed than worked >> >> Proof? (again, not a kookvid, actual non-lying data) >Ok, look at it the other way. Look at the videos played on TV and they all >used professional cameras. Maybe at first because the TV stations didn't know about or have access to the thousands of amateur videos. Probably many didn't appear in public until Youtube. > The video that got played the most was even >recorded at 200 FPS from a tripod. Obviously he didn't care about the >resolution because a lot was lost at that FPS rate. It is you kooktards that don't care about resolution, kooking about MPEG effects causing your "disappearing wing" in one video, and the poor video edit job of the plane and the crane. >THE NO PLANES MOVIE > https://youtu.be/p1D1C94eE8U?t=56m56s t=56 minutes and 56 seconds? What is it with you kooks and multi-hour kookvids? Do you think anyone actually watches them? >>> and the EMPs recorded by >>>an AM radio operated by WCBS gives us a good reason why. >> >> VHF FM receiver, kooktard. Not relevant anyway since an actual EMP, had >> there been one, would have knocked that receiver out permanently, as well >> as all the helicopters flying around, the NYC power grid, etc. etc. Don't >> you remember? That was part of your "duck test" proof that there were no >> nukes at the WTC! >BULLSHIT FM could not have recorded the EMPs you clown. That's right! Neither could an AM receiver, since both would be fried! >>>And how hard would it be to give a bunch of people camera that would keep >>>working even if there was a big enough EMP to knock out cheap cameras? >> >> Even more proof of no EMP. If there was one, there would be no videos >> of the towers collapsing since they would all have been knocked out. >> Except maybe any 8mm movie film cameras. >Now you are getting above ground nukes messed up with underground nukes >again you clown. Those video cameras were within 10 km, correct? Then they'd be fried, since the underground nuke EMP range is 10 km. >>>Don't forget 2.3 trillion was missing the day before 9/11/01. >> >> Proof? And why would this be relevant? >Oh come now. Everybody knows about that special report the day before >9/11/01 given by Donald Rumsfelt. Even if true, why is it relevant? >>>> and eyeballs, >> >>>And yet ABC and FOX were both interviewing eye witnesses that didn't see >>>or >>>hear anything at the time of the first real big explosion in the South >>>Tower. That happens to be truth in broadcasting. <G> >> >> Nobody ever claimed that *everybody* in NYC saw the planes. Just the >> thousands of people who were staring at the towers at the time, and who >> had a good view of the south part of the South Tower. >And yet you have no proof of that whatsoever. Proof that there would be thousands of people on the streets of Manhattan on a nice Tuesday morning? You gotta be kidding! Do I really need proof of this? Or proof that those thousands of people would be stairing at the burning North Tower, many with a good view of the South Tower? Human nature to rubberneck at something like that! >>>> magic thermate and so forth. >> >>>No magic. >> >> Yes, magic. Thermite/thermate is *slow* and would take some time to >> cut holes in steel. BTW why did you kooktards switch from kooking about >> magic thermate bringing down the towers to magic nukes doing so? >ROTFLMAO Here see: Kooktard, I have made thermite and thermate in the past. I don't need a kookvid to tell me what they do. >> OK, we know CGIs couldn't produce what we saw, and thermate couldn't >> produce what we saw, what did? How about airplanes? >ROTFLMAO because you obviosly never bothered to watch the NO PLANES MOVIE >that has a link above. Why would I want to watch a multi-hour kookvid? Especially since you already proved to us that they are all lies!! >> Don't change the subject. I was talking about the details of your >> Twooferism religion. >As opposed to your worshipping your Television Set As I said, I watch little television. > despite the fact it can >not explain why there was no debris from a 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon Little debris, since just about all of it went inside. >>>Since all the major networks were operated by a certain group of people >> >> Who would these people be? >Why don't you just search for: Why don't you just tell us who "they" are? >>> why >>>not all the places with seismographs too? That way nukes could be >>>detonated >>>right in front of our faces and everybody would scream no, no, no. <G> >> >> We already explained to you how it would be impossible to mess with the >> data from "all the places with seismographs". Every university has one, >> or a dozen. Every country, including ones unfriendly to the US has many, >> perhaps thousands and thousands. Many amateurs have them, unknown to >> almost anyone else. Yet none of them recorded a 5.5 earthquake near NYC, >> or the distinctive nuclear explosion anywhere in the world. Remember, >> this was part of you magnificent duck test proof of no nukes! >But if that were true then there would be a way to explain the remains of >the Twin Towers without nukes, What's wrong with that? It violates your Twoofer religion? > without claiming it ended up in the basement >and you or NIST has not been able to do that. <G> They explained it just fine. The debris ended up in the bathtub, and they had 108,342 truckloads of proof. Now tell us how they censored thousands and thousands of seismographs worldwide. >>>And your bullshit about radiation is still just bullshit >> >> Nope. No radiation above background levels at Ground Zero, except for a >> trivial increase in tritium from the airliner exit doors. (remember nukes >> spew tritium everywhere, a tritium detector would have gone nuts) >And yet you have no link at all to support that BS. Again, I claim they >sent specific samples elsewhere for testing and you have no idea how or >where the test for radiation was done. Look how nuclear weapons work. They use tritium either as an ingredient of thermonuclear weapons or as a booster for fission devices, to generate neutrons. Without it, they are very inefficient, scattering most of their plutonium/uranium, like the nukes at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Even with tritium boosting they aren't anywhere near 100% efficient, much of the tritium gets scattered and that would drive a tritium detector crazy. Not to mention all the fission products nukes produce, that would make Lower Manhattan too hot to enter for months! >And again more than Tritium was found and you really should watch: Again, why watch a kookvid that you yourself proved is full of lies?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 04:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hrs11bhjsohvg5e9kfgc0rg7opkh8uclve@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #524404 |
This important video proves that there were no real planes. The key to solving 9/11 is something called a "key". Understanding video compositing technology, both its capabilities AND limitations, proves no planes, and therefore proves demolition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 18:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <charlie-gordon1492-343E06.18075729092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #523827 |
In article <vY2dnaJku78zkpbLnZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > Too bad Popular Mechanics isn't into making cartoons like NIST because I'd > love to see how a 757 "flowed into the structure." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqMoFx0uwpo -- Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bdSdnap-0uButpHLnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #523866 |
"je suis charly" <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote in message news:charlie-gordon1492-343E06.18075729092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu... > In article <vY2dnaJku78zkpbLnZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>, > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> Too bad Popular Mechanics isn't into making cartoons like NIST because >> I'd >> love to see how a 757 "flowed into the structure." > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqMoFx0uwpo I didn't see a 757 in your video. Mind giving me a bookmark or a location in the video? <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ittqdc-ori.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #523737 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 folded back > so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small hole. Then Mike Walters is a babbling idiot if he made such a claim. > Popular Mechanic goes one step further than Mike Walter and claimed that the > 757 turned into a liquid and "flowed into the structure." (link at end) No, they did not. > Since neither one of those stories is supported by an experiment they can > both be considered to be complete bullshit. And talking about complete > bullshit everything NIST published about their "Collapse Initiations" was > also complete bullshit. Actual experiments are consistant with what Popular Mechanics actually said. > And people wonder why so many people can not believe the crap we were told > about the Pentagon, why people can not believe the crap we were told about > Pranksville, PA and can not believe the crap we were told about the crashes > that do not resemble crashes and the collapses in Nuke York City that do not > resemble collapses. What people wonder is how long you have been bat shit crazy and if you will ever get the psychiatric help you so desperately need, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 04:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rdan0bt9o0c6b99hcslgruamfcon0cikif@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523763 |
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:21:22 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 folded back
>> so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small hole.
>
>Then Mike Walters is a babbling idiot if he made such a claim.
>
>> Popular Mechanic goes one step further than Mike Walter and claimed that the
>> 757 turned into a liquid and "flowed into the structure." (link at end)
>
>No, they did not.
>
>> Since neither one of those stories is supported by an experiment they can
>> both be considered to be complete bullshit. And talking about complete
>> bullshit everything NIST published about their "Collapse Initiations" was
>> also complete bullshit.
>
>Actual experiments are consistant with what Popular Mechanics actually
>said.
>
>> And people wonder why so many people can not believe the crap we were told
>> about the Pentagon, why people can not believe the crap we were told about
>> Pranksville, PA and can not believe the crap we were told about the crashes
>> that do not resemble crashes and the collapses in Nuke York City that do not
>> resemble collapses.
>
>What people wonder is how long you have been bat shit crazy and if you
>will ever get the psychiatric help you so desperately need, kook.
He first must accept that he is mentally ill. Based on his posts,
I don't think Roger will be doing that.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 14:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9nml0b57j5t8oh8cgfvphjkpp2o04vhicb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523737 |
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 folded back >so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small hole. You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit the Pentagon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 18:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muf4is$qlu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #523779 |
Sarah Ehrett wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 >> folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small >> hole. > > You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike > Walter's claims are idiocy. > > Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that > American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit the > Pentagon. And yet you refuse or are unable to explain how an alleged passenger plane that had a wingspan of over 120' and a tail that poked 40' into the air. Managed to hit a building and not leave any damage beyond a 16' round hole. And that 16' hole was punched through at least 5 reinforced concrete walls, in addition to other walls inside each ring. Only a cruise missile is designed to do that. And even it would have had problems, without further explosives being used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 19:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kb6m0btp7hpk5a0i6234psp0iflb55mf47@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523834 |
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:51:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > >Sarah Ehrett wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 >>> folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small >>> hole. >> >> You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike >> Walter's claims are idiocy. >> >> Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that >> American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit the >> Pentagon. > > >And yet you refuse or are unable to explain how an alleged passenger plane >that had a wingspan of over 120' and a tail that poked 40' into the air. >Managed to hit a building and not leave any damage beyond a 16' round hole. > >And that 16' hole was punched through at least 5 reinforced concrete walls, >in addition to other walls inside each ring. > >Only a cruise missile is designed to do that. And even it would have had >problems, without further explosives being used. > So now you're claiming it was a cruise missile which hit the Pentagon and that additional explosives were used? What platform for your supposed missile? What additional explosives and where are you claiming they were located?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 09:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <gl6m0bl7dquobckjgo2346m5v66pcgrdlr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #523838 |
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:51:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >wrote: > >> >> >>Sarah Ehrett wrote: >>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:53:21 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> To make a long story short Mike Walter claims the wings of a 757 >>>> folded back so both the wings and the engines could fit into a small >>>> hole. >>> >>> You've said Mike Walter's claims are idiocy. And we've said Mike >>> Walter's claims are idiocy. >>> >>> Why do you still bring this up? Everyone agrees to the truth that >>> American Airlines Flight 77 did NOT fold it's wings before it hit the >>> Pentagon. >> >> >>And yet you refuse or are unable to explain how an alleged passenger plane >>that had a wingspan of over 120' and a tail that poked 40' into the air. >>Managed to hit a building and not leave any damage beyond a 16' round hole. >> >>And that 16' hole was punched through at least 5 reinforced concrete walls, >>in addition to other walls inside each ring. >> >>Only a cruise missile is designed to do that. And even it would have had >>problems, without further explosives being used. >> > >So now you're claiming it was a cruise missile which hit the Pentagon >and that additional explosives were used? > >What platform for your supposed missile? > >What additional explosives and where are you claiming they were >located? I'm surprised to learn that a cruise missile is designed to punch through reinforced concrete walls. From my time in the military, some of which was spent working on missiles, I seem to recall that weapons designed to penetrate thick concrete walls were "bunker buster" type weapons, and that cruise missiles were, primarily, designed to carry a warhead, conventional or nuclear, hundreds of miles to destroy a target by relying on the power of the warhead to do the work, rather than actually penetration. But since I'm sane I don't have the troofers ability to dream shit up. Shill #2 -- Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round... theobviousgcashman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web